Licensing

[Jan Wielemaker]

I would very much like to see GMP move to a permissive license.  We use
it for SWI-Prolog (http://www.swi-prolog.org), which moved from LGPL to
BSD a couple of years ago.  Although you can compile the system without
GMP and not all users need unbounded arithmetic this is enough of a
burden that made me look into alternatives.  I saw the same search
in the Haskell community.  There is nothing under open source that comes
even close to GMP though.  Congrats for that!

	Cheers --- Jan

On 21/09/2018 18:19, Mike Lodder wrote:
> Hello GMP authors,
> 
> This issue has probably been discussed in the past so forgive my ignorance.
> I write a lot of code that falls under Hyperledger at Linux Foundation
> umbrella that is consumed by various companies. Much of the code we write
> uses the Apache 2.0 License.
> 
> I write crypto code that uses big number libraries and would like to adopt
> GMP but cannot because it was GPL and is now LGPL. While LGPL is less of a
> problem, its limits adoption for what we want to use it for.
> 
> We are looking to use Libsnark <https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark> for
> zero-knowledge proofs. Libsnark uses GMP. Libsnark is licensed under MIT.
> 
> Would you consider also licensing GMP using Apache 2.0?
> Here is a link
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z_8o8k_PFRM4XfZyv9jH1_-IyN0CsCMI2JlrGsCX378/edit>
> to a project that we want to use GMP with. I believe with this license
> change that adoption of GMP will be even greater. We are not looking to
> steal or screw over the GMP project authors. Its the Linux Foundation. Our
> projects would include the necessary licenses and headers in our code and
> give credit where its due. I believe greater opportunities exist with this
> license change.
> 
> I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your consideration.
>